No social network (including offline ones) would be able to operate if they let everyone say whatever they wanted. There is an intense amount of moderation required, even here on HN, to remove low quality posts, abuse, threats, spam, porn, illegal content and lots more. So no, you don't really want one where anyone can share their beliefs no matter what. You just have your own opinion of what should/shouldn't be allowed, same as everyone else.
I, and I believe most other people that share a similar view to mine, are not arguing for true zero moderation. I feel like you're trying act like me admitting that any moderation would make me a hypocrite.
I'm ok with them filtering "illegal content" or rather I don't think that's a choice that they have and is something to address within the legal system rather then at a social network level.
Abuse of the system? Like they are sending too much traffic/spamming/malware/etc is fine to limit. Threats, allow users to block each-other; I'm fine with restricting people who attempt to circumvent other peoples blocks.
Porn meh; I don't think it's a real issue I think it's great to allow users to filter pornographic content if they don't want to see it.
My issue is when they start getting into filtering out "incorrect" statements, "dangerous" ideas, even "hate speech" (an every expanding category), etc. It's very distressing that Jack Dorsey thinks twitter has a moral responsibility to remove certain viewpoints from discussions and believes that these discussion will shape the future of our society.
I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him.
Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of right and wrong on the President of the United States. His opinion, right or wrong, is of national importance. What he says is a matter of historical value, showing the culture of America and its leadership at the time. It provides a check on power, letting the citizens know what their President thinks on certain issues and allows them to form their own opinions on whether the President is a leader they can get behind or try and vote out.
I agree with you but why only the President? This gets at the frequent HN topic of big tech censorship vs freedom of speech. Why should we forcibly remove any posts at all? Why should _Insert_Big_Tech_Company_ get to tell me what's right and wrong as opposed to letting me make my own determination by reading it? When we remove censorship, we also invite others to critique and counter ideas that are deemed "incorrect".
for instance, one can use one's own app:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/with-r...
“The most important, golden thing in politics is a cellphone number,” said Parscale, who ran Trump’s digital efforts in 2016 before leading the 2020 campaign. “When we receive cellphone numbers, it really allows us to identify them across the databases. Who are they, voting history, everything.”
Muzzle is a strong word to use to describe a man who can call a press conference that will be attended by every major national and international news organization at the drop of a hat, and, failing that, can send an SMS to every phone in the USA.
Not really. We are afforded a window into how he thinks outside of these channels that are managed by his aides. Muzzling that denies us insight into who he is.
I completely agree with the theory here, however he is, and has been, treating personal accounts as "official" accounts for a while.
Anything posted through those means should be maintained as a historical record.
I agree with how Twitter handled it; they made it clear that it was in violation, hid it by default, however kept it.
In my mind, I need to consider a situation as if the president tweets out something that _clearly_ violates ToS; such as something overtly racist, or a direct threat.
As a 100% fake example:
> "I am encouraging the Military to use live ammunition tonight in DC. Anyone out after curfew deserves to be shot on site!"
The fact that this was by the president is 100% important, and needs to be available to be seen by anyone that wants to see it. Anything less is a huge safety risk, and in my opinion, if a platforms removes that content it constitutes gaslighting the public.
If you want to maintain a historical record, shouldn't those tweets or whatever be archived using the presidential records act at the source?
This way a private company doesn't decide or is responsible what gets archived/deleted/censored/annotated but it always gets archived using what worked for every document produced by a president for decades.
I think you have a point of it being archived but I think you're wrong about who should archive it. At the moment the president tweets official policy (maybe debatable, but let's assume it is), so those tweets should fall under the presidential records act and be archived by the white house staff. Then it doesn't matter if they are later deleted by whatever social media company, or even if are censored or have a fact check attached to them. The original message is stored and kept. (well, at least in theory)
I don't know why you're being downvoted. You're right.
He should have access to special information, and be involved in the world in ways regular citizens can't (meeting with terrorist organizations to work on peace, for example).
But the laws of the land should apply to everyone, equally. I have no idea why that would be a controversial opinion.
Censoring the president hurts the Ammerican people more than censoring a normal individual. Closing our eyes and ears to the presidents actions and statement doesn't make them go away, or meaningfully disincentivize him.
If the president were to announce a racist policy or glorifies a violent military action, we should know.
> Censoring the president hurts the Ammerican people more than censoring a normal individual.
I don't buy that a single bit. Any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international news event.
I agree that banning trump would be a major news event. How does that relate to my statement that you quoted?
The president can announce war, policies, and executive orders. Normal individuals can not. Preventing individuals from seeing these announcements is obviously more impactful than whatever the typical citizen is saying.
Even if the speech is violent, hateful, or racist, it valuable to see it. Perhaps even moreso because of the content,
Except there's a ton of other channels those announcements also go through, and legitimate announcements are not what people are worried about. Legitimate speech will be seen one way or another.
But violent/hateful/racist speech has no place in social networks, and should be struck down immediately.
If the president wants to express violent/hateful/racist speech, it is even more important the public see it, so that they can judge it and vote accordingly.
I would rather know if the president is a bigot, and their latest misguided thoughts, than not know. I want others to be able to see and judge the behavior as well. Therefore I think the public interest is to provide a free and unmoderated platform.
The solution to a president you dont like is voting them out of office, not gagging them so they appear less offensive. If you dont personally want to see the content > unfollow
This is not about censoring. Putting a warning beside a comment for BS is in fact very effective. Not only it humiliates the bastard, it also keeps a record of his ignorance for the world to see. There’s nothing special about the president. He’s elected by people. In this case it’s not even sure whom exactly since he lost the popular vote by a huge margin. But he’s a human and not above the law. The problem is the USA constitution that has no answers for the possibility of someone like Drumpf getting elected and then tools for congress to control him while in power. When it comes to decisions with big implications, border wall or brexit (in the UK) it can’t be left to a simple majority to decide.
The President can announce he's going to bomb a country with cruise missles, should Twitter remove those posts? On the surface that's 1000x worse than yelling "fire" in a crowd or inciting violence like he has the past few days.
We can go back and forth with hypothetical situations all day long, but I think we all know there is a world of difference between a legitimate military operation and racist/xenophobic/hate speech.
Speak for yourself. I prefer others be allowed to illustrate their repugnance without meddlesome filters getting in the way.
Besides which, it's also a matter of public record keeping. How unfortunate it would if by spicing up an unpopular decision with a few choice words, the President of the United States could count on having things sneak under the radar/get caught in the pipes.
In short, you like being muzzled? Have at. I will not stand for anyone having the same done against their will. No matter the level of repugnance, obscenity, or inconvenience to myself.
What would the world do without those oh so valuable examples of what not to be?
So you want to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater? Or what - you want someone to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater provided they are powerful enough to get away with it?
Free speech does not mean there cannot be limits on that speech.
And as I've said a few times now, any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international news event. So I don't buy the "matter of public record keeping" argument. There will be plenty of ways to know that the President yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, with the information put in proper context.
The alternative is a world where the flames of Rwandan-style genocides (where local & government sponsored radio messages were used to incite massacres) can be stoked on Twitter. We're already seeing a "light" version of that in a microcosm with Trump fanning flames of unrest on social media.
As much as you might want this magical world where no speech is limited, you can't have it both ways in the real world.
>So you want to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater? Or what - you want someone to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater provided they are powerful enough to get away with it?
I refuse to accept the proposition that it is acceptable to quash any form of dissent so long as there is a crisis going on, and you can come up with a catchy aphorism.
I do accept there is stuff you shouldn't say, but that's just it. It's a normative value. That is allowed, and people have vastly different ones. The key is to note the repugnant ones, recognize them for what they are, and don't make of yourself the same shining example of what not to be.
>As much as you might want this magical world where no speech is limited, you can't have it both ways in the real world.
How magical a world is required to facilitate peaceful coexistence other than to by default doubt every single last thing you see on the Internet?
To be aware of the utility of manipulating and instigating people through the use of information warfare techniques? In the world of purportedly honest people, the Liar is king! So understand that around you are so many that endeavor to be Kings! It doesn't take much to question what gets forced upon you informationwise and to take responsibility for the actions you alone embark upon given the information you are shown. Take this personally to heart, and be willing to set the example for your community. When an equilibrium is achieved, you'll have done your part.
The only outcome of silencing something is to give it legitimacy. Let it echo. Let it ring from the rooftops. Let the Jester make a fool of himself and move on. It is in silence and what isn't said that our fears and anxieties hide, that we abandon our higher natures, and succumb to the bewitchment of our primal instincts.
A man can be reasoned with, and reckon his way out of line of Bullshit. An animal is led by the nosering of the passions and instincts of the moment into all manner of barbarism and atrocity.
Is this, this resortment to the treatment of your fellow man as some beast it? Do you truly think so little of your fellows that they need be muzzled? That they be forced to gnash their teeth that the feebleminded around you not fall victim to their spell? Are you so confident that you too are not under the influence of the same hysteria gripping them?
We can only be responsible for ourselves, and those that delegate to us the responsibility of their care. In the execution thereof that responsibility it is paramount to not behave in a reckless
or deplorable a manner, and to return to them the responsibility of their own care when we see we are unfit to discharge that duty.
To inflict such harm as to censor or to deprive of liberty for the mere notion that someone whom delegated to us not responsibility for them, or for whom we did not saddle ourselves with responsibility for them through rite, sacrament, or conception is the most insidious and perfidious of acts to perpetrate on our fellow men.
We accept vigilance, and preserve the notion of inherent liberty because fundamentally, to not is to invite forth all the wickedness of our forefathers and forebearers in all the atrocity they too bore out in the struggle to create a fairer, brighter, better tomorrow.
Bring not silence to the stage of life. Rather let it ring with the sound and fury of your birthright. Should good men cry out over the din of the fools, there can be but peace in the end though the tempest itself of the time be a trial to bare.
I will not stand by and see yet more right carved out. I will not create more "thems". Today's fool is, was, will be later's, yesterday's, tomorrow's sage, and not one man has the right over any ...
There is no basis in American jurisprudence for a restriction on “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” The quote is from the majority opinion in Shneck va US, which was overturned and the same Chief Justice wrote both opinions.
Speech not protected by the 1st amendment includes: obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Tweets were not deleted, you are using a strawman. Tweets were marked up with warning messages. It is perfectly sensible to mark as "factually wrong" a message that says "the sky is green" and as "inciting violence, but has to be kept for historic reasons" when the message is quoting a known oppressor and making threats.
> If you really believe that a post is going to cause people to go to go do real-world violence, then that’s not the type of thing that I think we should have up even behind a warning
I believe this may have been what OP was referring to
I think the issue that Twitter is running into now and is going to run into is that they're not applying this in any manner that could be deemed consistent. Do a quick search for "kill the" and you'll find endless tweets without the warning.
You could make the case that Twitter only has to enforce this for accounts of importance. Yet there are plenty of officals who have tweets calling for violent jihad, the killing of homosexuals, so on and so on that have been made since the first warning... and that label has still not been applied.
Twitter is editorializing, and I greatly fear they are going to ruin Section 230 for all of us.
To play devil’s advocate, one could use propaganda by only telling truths. This is done by selective truth telling. Can’t twitter’s selective truth telling be considered propaganda, even if the facts it present are not strictly incorrect?
For example if Twitter decided to annotate people’s tweets about coronavirus with a “fact” about it originating from China, it wouldn’t be untrue, but it would appear such notices would serve some public opinion shifting effects no? How they select what facts and what tweets to even annotate could be used to pushed an agenda through careful selective information control.
Flagging is distinct from removing posts. Removing seems obviously wrong for the reasons you give. Flagging is probably ok, maybe even the right thing to do.
To a certain degree I agree with you, although I think it should be practiced in conjunction with Twitter's strategy of flagging/hiding tweets. It seems like a good way to ensure the racist/violent/fake content can be moderated in some fashion.
I think it's actually very useful, and informative for people to know what their president is thinking, and frankly, how idiotic he is. The world would be in a much worse position if he was silent, and his supporters were able to deceive themselves that he was competent.
His posts are polarizing though, which means a good half of the population may just accept and agree with it as much as one half shakes their heads.
Actually Trump knows this and is saying and doing what his base wants to hear. Believe it or not prior to politics he was quoted to support gay rights and abortion. He panders to the religious right and is trying to play left and right against each other by dividing, because that cements his right wing base. So such action taken by the left allow his supporters to dig in. It gives him publicity and he doesn’t care that it’s negative in the eyes of the left because he obviously isn’t pandering to the left in any way.
Counterpoint: the POTUS has plenty of opportunity to get his voice heard independently of Twitter and Twitter has a right as to what they will publish.
> but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place.
When you said the president, did you mean _the_ president?
I'm sure you know facebook is active in other countries. So when you say they should make an exception for the president, I think you actually meant _your_ president. I'm hammering on this distinction you've made because you could've as easily made the case that anyone could post what he does.
You didn't.
You made an exception for president X of whatever nation and that's fine. It's also fine that you mention the _national_ importance.
The problem is that you probably won't apply that rule equally when you consider that facebook operates in several countries. Some with presidents, some without. Some with a working democracy and a rule of law, and some not.
If you think he gets a free pass because he's _your_ president, that's fine. But don't expect people in other countries to follow your reasoning because we didn't elect him, we don't even want him and he's not special to us to deserve a free pass.
Calm down man, you're reading way too much into my use of the word "President" and trying to twist the words into some anti-Trump rant. The article was about Trump, my comment was on the article linked to here.
But my comment still stands, if our/your/whatever elected leaders are just people like us. Why treat them differently or expect facebook to treat them differently?
Your reason of him being elected doesn't make any sense to me. Saying it's the president makes even less sense. What about mayors, governors in the US? Do they get the same leniency as you give to president?
We'll have to cordially disagree then - I think world leaders should be treated differently, and you do not. No right or wrong opinions possible on that.
I think you are too focused on the world leader thing. I never said they shouldn't be treated differently in the general sense you are alluding to. We're still talking about a valid reason why facebook should or shouldn't treat the president of the us differently?
Your reason: "He's a president" isn't sufficient.
Societies work according to the rule of law. If the law doesn't make an exception if a customer to your business is a world leader, then why should you automatically assume businesses should make an exception for a president, or whatever world leader?
If your position is that businesses should make exceptions for your president then convince your congress to make this into a law. Currently this isn't a law in your country, let alone in mine.
>Facebook, for its part, said it was "grateful that leaders in the civil rights community took the time to share candid, honest feedback" and said "it is an important moment to listen, and we look forward to continuing these conversations."
PR blabber. They need to start printing these responses as "Facebook's Public Relations department responded to Axios with a general response." or something.
I'm pretty sure that Facebook won't do anything until they finish integrating the Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp backends so that any future antitrust action won't be able to split up the company. They just need to postpone.
Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level. Not just Facebook either; we need to ban speech and public commentary whenever it’s problematic. Books need to be screened too. Hopefully we’ll be able to monitor and correct people’s thoughts as well when the technology becomes available. When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.
Uh no. The problem today isn't free speech, it's that the limits on how you transmit and disseminate it, favors the tiny, loud, misleading, ignorant few who can generate the most 'engagement'. Like you for instance. You're hear calling free speech dangerous, and that is such an absurd and ridiculous point of view I feel the need to respond.
Free speech has worked great for 100s of years. You don't give up wheels because people have started driving cars into buildings.
> Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level.
I know you're being sarcastic, but this is kinda true. Prior to social media, speech was regulated at every level though a hive-mind of individual choices about what to disseminate and the fact that broadcasting was expensive enough that systems of peer review (of the speakers or their works) had to be implemented to access it out of necessity. Social media took the peer review out of broadcasting, which does not seem to have been a positive development in many respects.
The speech part of free speech is overrated, and the editorial function of the broadcasting peer review systems is greatly underrated.
Your arguments apply just as well to voting; people express their views though voting without the benefit of peer review and those votes have an effect on the public as a whole. By your logic, perhaps secret voting is not a "positive development" and we need to "regulate it on every level" (your words) as well? I hope not.
(Note: I get the sarcasm) A lot of valid points here, I think the problem is in the size of the platform for the message. There was a lot of self reflection by Vox over the last year about “yes shining a light on bad ideas can disinfect them but there is a danger in amplifying the message”. Sure every idea should be able to be voiced but should every idea be amplified to billions of people without context?
Devil’s advocate thought experiment: suppose I was a CEO of a large social media company and my personal view is pro-life. Should I remove pro-choice posts (or censor them with violence labels), or should I allow discussion on the topic even though I personally disagree with it?
I don’t think people can have their cake and eat it too. Either the CEOs of these companies start imposing their personal views on their users or they try to make the platform as neutral as possible. In-between solutions are going to make everyone angry.
The point isn't to push a personal cause or belief. The goal should be to keep a safe space where people aren't allowed to threaten others and incite violence.
The pro-life viewpoint considers pro-choice views to be advocating violence in the most direct way possible ("murdering babies"). That's the fundamental problem: there is a huge subjective grey area.
I am pretty sure that's the _intended_ Facebook stance, and the disagreement comes over what's a "grey area" and what's clear cut -- which is what makes it a grey area to begin with.
> "ok... you can chose to not take a stance on grey areas and act on clear cut cases."
Eating meat is considered unethical by many and the fact that animals are often treated poorly by factory farming is not deniable. That's pretty clear cut. What ruling would you make?
Yet my meat comes from sustainable near-wild farms that enhance the environ, not a factory farm. Should I have to listen to some loud vegan breathlessly proclaim all omnivores to be vile and lacking in ethics? Everything is a damned grey area.
That was a frustratingly meandering and low-density listen. Here's the substance of the episode, the rest can be discarded:
> Now that we have agreed that not all speech is protected, is this particular speech we are talking about protected? The answer is that first we start with a presumption that a law punishing speech for its content or message or subject matter violates the First Amendment.
> We look to see if the speech falls into a short list of well-defined historical exceptions to the First Amendment; obscenity, defamation, fraud, speech that’s integral to criminal conduct. And if the speech doesn’t fall into one of those narrow categories, the government cannot restrict it, unless it can pass that incredibly tough test called strict scrutiny, which is almost always fatal.
> So how much does saying you can’t shout fire in a theater help you in doing that analysis? Not a bit. It’s empty words. Every time someone says it I get a little more misanthropic.
So, as to whether it's illegal to shout Fire! in a crowded theater (which isn't on fire), I still don't know. The StackExchange folks lean toward it probably being illegal, especially if you end up causing a panic, depending on state. https://law.stackexchange.com/q/28853
Conservative Americans are traditionally all-in on respect for private property. One doesn't expect to go just walk on someone's lawn and put up a sign without the owner's permission. I honestly don't understand why the same respect doesn't apply to the services provided by private companies like Twitter and Facebook.
These companies spend billions of dollars annually on infrastructure and engineering to host user content. How can Republicans be asking the government to step in and dictate over that multi-billion investment? Doesn't that fly in the face of everything they believe about government's role in the private sector?
In your example, of course the pro-life CEO can do whatever they want with content on their site, assuming it was uploaded by users within the site's terms of service. If someone were actually paying for hosting of the content, they would have a case to get upset about having it taken down. But that's not the kind of contract that users of social media sites have made with the companies.
Zuckerberg realizes that large corporations should not be arbiters of truth, because it cannot be fair, and it cannot work long-term, in my opinion.
Even if one decides certain types of incorrect content should be removed, he realizes there's no chance for this to be applied evenly to all individuals and organizations, especially when the only example given by these activists is a single person.
Mark Zuckerberg knows that Trump will probably be re-elected in spite of everything; it would be quite unwise for the CEO of any large public corporation to make an enemy of the most vindictive American president in recent history. His shareholders won’t appreciate the results of that.
In the book, Guardians of the Internet, two cases are mentioned:
Case 1:
Mexican gang violence was caught dramatically on video and went viral. This sparked a conversation and brought attention on a major issue since The government had been suppressing this information to project an image of security.
This video pierced that veil- until it was seen by (I believe) British citizens who woke up in the morning.
They called their friends at Facebook who realized it broke their rules and removed it.
Case 2:
Contrast this with how Facebook handled the boston Bombings.
Facebook mods removed gore images because that broke their rules.
And then a message came on high telling people “no, This is newsworthy and it goes through. The rules are in abeyance.”
If country like Mexico Can’t have that benefit, then Facebook is effectively using power in one place to decide what goes through and in other places is choosing not to exercise it.
Facebook is then trapped by its choice.
What should FB do in a country like Brazil? Hungary? Russia? India?
Heck, could any theoretically company find the right policy people and be able to pay them to tell their teams what the right call is?
Facebook's solution currently is this "we are not the arbiter of truth" comment, and working with governments to create govt agencies to set up rules which FB can then follow.
Let’s not first talk about what Facebook ought to do, but what Facebook can do.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom. This includes speech, which is already regulated in our society.
And as a society, we have spent ample effort to distinguish harmful speech - promotions of hate, abuse of minors etc...
This framework is clearly outlined in our laws and everything fb has done so far has been lawful.
One of the major proponents of this “let’s allow as much free speech as possible” framework is to establish an competitive marketplace of ideas, so that instead of legislating away bad ideas, as a society, we choose not to adopt them through reason.
This is why I think FB should be allowed to do what it’s doing.
As to if the recommendation and ranking algos are doing their job to help ideas be battled out in an transparent and efficient way, or simply creating an ideological echo chamber, that is another issue altogether.
We, as consumers, need to be vigilant, and choose a platform that we think is good for each one of us and our society.
In this case, have a discussion as a nation and choose between the Twitter and Facebook model.
You know what's hillaroius about all of this; the tweet was literally correct. Whether you interpretted as a threat or a warning or whatever, looters have been shot and killed by store owners protecting their shops.
What is the reasoning behind taking down or flagging the comments (looking for responses, not rhetorical)?
If it is to reduce distribution because it could incite violence, it seems to me that 1) the vast majority of distribution/awareness is happening via traditional news outlets and 2) distribution and awareness is actually what you want to happen, since it is important that people be aware of the President's extreme rhetoric. If the reason is that the statement is immoral and platforms have a duty to take a stand / pick a side, then I would say that sounds reasonable to me but leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable. It feels like we are applying a Total War mentality to our political discourse, and that doesn't seem like something that could possibly end well.
> "It feels like we are applying a Total War mentality to our political discourse"
That's a pretty good way of describing it save that I would add that one side is failing to realize that they might lose and get hoist by their own petard of suppressing speech someday.
106 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 164 ms ] threadI'm ok with them filtering "illegal content" or rather I don't think that's a choice that they have and is something to address within the legal system rather then at a social network level.
Abuse of the system? Like they are sending too much traffic/spamming/malware/etc is fine to limit. Threats, allow users to block each-other; I'm fine with restricting people who attempt to circumvent other peoples blocks.
Porn meh; I don't think it's a real issue I think it's great to allow users to filter pornographic content if they don't want to see it.
My issue is when they start getting into filtering out "incorrect" statements, "dangerous" ideas, even "hate speech" (an every expanding category), etc. It's very distressing that Jack Dorsey thinks twitter has a moral responsibility to remove certain viewpoints from discussions and believes that these discussion will shape the future of our society.
Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of right and wrong on the President of the United States. His opinion, right or wrong, is of national importance. What he says is a matter of historical value, showing the culture of America and its leadership at the time. It provides a check on power, letting the citizens know what their President thinks on certain issues and allows them to form their own opinions on whether the President is a leader they can get behind or try and vote out.
Is more info like that really useful?
There are republican and church leaders who are now condemning him since his “looting and shooting” tweet.
His tweeting continues to influence people’s perception of his character.
Anything posted through those means should be maintained as a historical record.
I agree with how Twitter handled it; they made it clear that it was in violation, hid it by default, however kept it.
In my mind, I need to consider a situation as if the president tweets out something that _clearly_ violates ToS; such as something overtly racist, or a direct threat.
As a 100% fake example:
> "I am encouraging the Military to use live ammunition tonight in DC. Anyone out after curfew deserves to be shot on site!"
The fact that this was by the president is 100% important, and needs to be available to be seen by anyone that wants to see it. Anything less is a huge safety risk, and in my opinion, if a platforms removes that content it constitutes gaslighting the public.
This way a private company doesn't decide or is responsible what gets archived/deleted/censored/annotated but it always gets archived using what worked for every document produced by a president for decades.
I think you have a point of it being archived but I think you're wrong about who should archive it. At the moment the president tweets official policy (maybe debatable, but let's assume it is), so those tweets should fall under the presidential records act and be archived by the white house staff. Then it doesn't matter if they are later deleted by whatever social media company, or even if are censored or have a fact check attached to them. The original message is stored and kept. (well, at least in theory)
Monarchs are above the law: a president should be required to follow every law & every rule to the same degree as any other citizen.
He should have access to special information, and be involved in the world in ways regular citizens can't (meeting with terrorist organizations to work on peace, for example).
But the laws of the land should apply to everyone, equally. I have no idea why that would be a controversial opinion.
No. The President isn’t above the law, and he shouldn’t be above the rules of social networking sites as well.
There are plenty of ways to archive and memorialize offensive/racist/vile posts from a President. The news media will do a fine job of that.
No exceptions, no mercy: if a President oversteps, they should be forcibly muzzled just like the rest of us.
Yikes. I'm not sure that sort of rhetoric is really helping your argument.
If the president were to announce a racist policy or glorifies a violent military action, we should know.
I don't buy that a single bit. Any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international news event.
The president can announce war, policies, and executive orders. Normal individuals can not. Preventing individuals from seeing these announcements is obviously more impactful than whatever the typical citizen is saying.
Even if the speech is violent, hateful, or racist, it valuable to see it. Perhaps even moreso because of the content,
But violent/hateful/racist speech has no place in social networks, and should be struck down immediately.
I would rather know if the president is a bigot, and their latest misguided thoughts, than not know. I want others to be able to see and judge the behavior as well. Therefore I think the public interest is to provide a free and unmoderated platform.
The solution to a president you dont like is voting them out of office, not gagging them so they appear less offensive. If you dont personally want to see the content > unfollow
Besides which, it's also a matter of public record keeping. How unfortunate it would if by spicing up an unpopular decision with a few choice words, the President of the United States could count on having things sneak under the radar/get caught in the pipes.
In short, you like being muzzled? Have at. I will not stand for anyone having the same done against their will. No matter the level of repugnance, obscenity, or inconvenience to myself.
What would the world do without those oh so valuable examples of what not to be?
Free speech does not mean there cannot be limits on that speech.
And as I've said a few times now, any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international news event. So I don't buy the "matter of public record keeping" argument. There will be plenty of ways to know that the President yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, with the information put in proper context.
The alternative is a world where the flames of Rwandan-style genocides (where local & government sponsored radio messages were used to incite massacres) can be stoked on Twitter. We're already seeing a "light" version of that in a microcosm with Trump fanning flames of unrest on social media.
As much as you might want this magical world where no speech is limited, you can't have it both ways in the real world.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
I refuse to accept the proposition that it is acceptable to quash any form of dissent so long as there is a crisis going on, and you can come up with a catchy aphorism.
I do accept there is stuff you shouldn't say, but that's just it. It's a normative value. That is allowed, and people have vastly different ones. The key is to note the repugnant ones, recognize them for what they are, and don't make of yourself the same shining example of what not to be.
>As much as you might want this magical world where no speech is limited, you can't have it both ways in the real world.
How magical a world is required to facilitate peaceful coexistence other than to by default doubt every single last thing you see on the Internet?
To be aware of the utility of manipulating and instigating people through the use of information warfare techniques? In the world of purportedly honest people, the Liar is king! So understand that around you are so many that endeavor to be Kings! It doesn't take much to question what gets forced upon you informationwise and to take responsibility for the actions you alone embark upon given the information you are shown. Take this personally to heart, and be willing to set the example for your community. When an equilibrium is achieved, you'll have done your part.
The only outcome of silencing something is to give it legitimacy. Let it echo. Let it ring from the rooftops. Let the Jester make a fool of himself and move on. It is in silence and what isn't said that our fears and anxieties hide, that we abandon our higher natures, and succumb to the bewitchment of our primal instincts.
A man can be reasoned with, and reckon his way out of line of Bullshit. An animal is led by the nosering of the passions and instincts of the moment into all manner of barbarism and atrocity.
Is this, this resortment to the treatment of your fellow man as some beast it? Do you truly think so little of your fellows that they need be muzzled? That they be forced to gnash their teeth that the feebleminded around you not fall victim to their spell? Are you so confident that you too are not under the influence of the same hysteria gripping them?
We can only be responsible for ourselves, and those that delegate to us the responsibility of their care. In the execution thereof that responsibility it is paramount to not behave in a reckless or deplorable a manner, and to return to them the responsibility of their own care when we see we are unfit to discharge that duty.
To inflict such harm as to censor or to deprive of liberty for the mere notion that someone whom delegated to us not responsibility for them, or for whom we did not saddle ourselves with responsibility for them through rite, sacrament, or conception is the most insidious and perfidious of acts to perpetrate on our fellow men.
We accept vigilance, and preserve the notion of inherent liberty because fundamentally, to not is to invite forth all the wickedness of our forefathers and forebearers in all the atrocity they too bore out in the struggle to create a fairer, brighter, better tomorrow.
Bring not silence to the stage of life. Rather let it ring with the sound and fury of your birthright. Should good men cry out over the din of the fools, there can be but peace in the end though the tempest itself of the time be a trial to bare.
I will not stand by and see yet more right carved out. I will not create more "thems". Today's fool is, was, will be later's, yesterday's, tomorrow's sage, and not one man has the right over any ...
Speech not protected by the 1st amendment includes: obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Note that incitement is VERY narrowly defined.
But a politician having unfettered access to provide propaganda is not allowing leadership, if anything it's getting closer to single party control.
> If you really believe that a post is going to cause people to go to go do real-world violence, then that’s not the type of thing that I think we should have up even behind a warning
I believe this may have been what OP was referring to
You could make the case that Twitter only has to enforce this for accounts of importance. Yet there are plenty of officals who have tweets calling for violent jihad, the killing of homosexuals, so on and so on that have been made since the first warning... and that label has still not been applied.
Twitter is editorializing, and I greatly fear they are going to ruin Section 230 for all of us.
For example if Twitter decided to annotate people’s tweets about coronavirus with a “fact” about it originating from China, it wouldn’t be untrue, but it would appear such notices would serve some public opinion shifting effects no? How they select what facts and what tweets to even annotate could be used to pushed an agenda through careful selective information control.
I think it's actually very useful, and informative for people to know what their president is thinking, and frankly, how idiotic he is. The world would be in a much worse position if he was silent, and his supporters were able to deceive themselves that he was competent.
Actually Trump knows this and is saying and doing what his base wants to hear. Believe it or not prior to politics he was quoted to support gay rights and abortion. He panders to the religious right and is trying to play left and right against each other by dividing, because that cements his right wing base. So such action taken by the left allow his supporters to dig in. It gives him publicity and he doesn’t care that it’s negative in the eyes of the left because he obviously isn’t pandering to the left in any way.
I agree that public officials' correspondence should be archived and publicly available, though, related funny story: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filin...
When you said the president, did you mean _the_ president?
I'm sure you know facebook is active in other countries. So when you say they should make an exception for the president, I think you actually meant _your_ president. I'm hammering on this distinction you've made because you could've as easily made the case that anyone could post what he does.
You didn't.
You made an exception for president X of whatever nation and that's fine. It's also fine that you mention the _national_ importance.
The problem is that you probably won't apply that rule equally when you consider that facebook operates in several countries. Some with presidents, some without. Some with a working democracy and a rule of law, and some not.
If you think he gets a free pass because he's _your_ president, that's fine. But don't expect people in other countries to follow your reasoning because we didn't elect him, we don't even want him and he's not special to us to deserve a free pass.
Bolsanaro for example, says false things - would you know if you weren't brazillian?
How would FB achieve fairness in its policy if it put a flag on Trump and didn't on Bolsanaro, or other even worse world leaders?
What about some Random leader of a tiny nation somewhere who believes in witchcraft?
There are calls being made here which seem easy to Americans, but the processes behind it cannot be reapplied at scale.
How do Social Media firms handle that? How does anyone morally balance that out?
But my comment still stands, if our/your/whatever elected leaders are just people like us. Why treat them differently or expect facebook to treat them differently?
Your reason of him being elected doesn't make any sense to me. Saying it's the president makes even less sense. What about mayors, governors in the US? Do they get the same leniency as you give to president?
Your reason: "He's a president" isn't sufficient.
Societies work according to the rule of law. If the law doesn't make an exception if a customer to your business is a world leader, then why should you automatically assume businesses should make an exception for a president, or whatever world leader?
If your position is that businesses should make exceptions for your president then convince your congress to make this into a law. Currently this isn't a law in your country, let alone in mine.
PR blabber. They need to start printing these responses as "Facebook's Public Relations department responded to Axios with a general response." or something.
...Facebook, probably.
"You can't split us up! Our backends are unified!" "Un-unify your backend." "...oh."
Free speech has worked great for 100s of years. You don't give up wheels because people have started driving cars into buildings.
I sincerely hope that was all sarcasm.
Someone will probably comment soon to explain how your proposition is not at all absurd. A theater will be mentioned.
Time to shut down the free speech.
I know you're being sarcastic, but this is kinda true. Prior to social media, speech was regulated at every level though a hive-mind of individual choices about what to disseminate and the fact that broadcasting was expensive enough that systems of peer review (of the speakers or their works) had to be implemented to access it out of necessity. Social media took the peer review out of broadcasting, which does not seem to have been a positive development in many respects.
The speech part of free speech is overrated, and the editorial function of the broadcasting peer review systems is greatly underrated.
I don’t think people can have their cake and eat it too. Either the CEOs of these companies start imposing their personal views on their users or they try to make the platform as neutral as possible. In-between solutions are going to make everyone angry.
Eating meat is considered unethical by many and the fact that animals are often treated poorly by factory farming is not deniable. That's pretty clear cut. What ruling would you make?
Similarly incitement of violence isn't a political opinion to be agreed or disagreed with.
Yes it is [^1].
> Similarly incitement of violence isn't a political opinion to be agreed or disagreed with.
An incitement to violence is a specific thing, and it must be both specific and reasonably actionable. "Kill the Xs" is not an incitement to violence.
[^1]: Podcast with transcript. https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fi...
> Now that we have agreed that not all speech is protected, is this particular speech we are talking about protected? The answer is that first we start with a presumption that a law punishing speech for its content or message or subject matter violates the First Amendment.
> We look to see if the speech falls into a short list of well-defined historical exceptions to the First Amendment; obscenity, defamation, fraud, speech that’s integral to criminal conduct. And if the speech doesn’t fall into one of those narrow categories, the government cannot restrict it, unless it can pass that incredibly tough test called strict scrutiny, which is almost always fatal.
> So how much does saying you can’t shout fire in a theater help you in doing that analysis? Not a bit. It’s empty words. Every time someone says it I get a little more misanthropic.
If you want more background, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
So, as to whether it's illegal to shout Fire! in a crowded theater (which isn't on fire), I still don't know. The StackExchange folks lean toward it probably being illegal, especially if you end up causing a panic, depending on state. https://law.stackexchange.com/q/28853
These companies spend billions of dollars annually on infrastructure and engineering to host user content. How can Republicans be asking the government to step in and dictate over that multi-billion investment? Doesn't that fly in the face of everything they believe about government's role in the private sector?
In your example, of course the pro-life CEO can do whatever they want with content on their site, assuming it was uploaded by users within the site's terms of service. If someone were actually paying for hosting of the content, they would have a case to get upset about having it taken down. But that's not the kind of contract that users of social media sites have made with the companies.
Even if one decides certain types of incorrect content should be removed, he realizes there's no chance for this to be applied evenly to all individuals and organizations, especially when the only example given by these activists is a single person.
In the book, Guardians of the Internet, two cases are mentioned:
Case 1:
Mexican gang violence was caught dramatically on video and went viral. This sparked a conversation and brought attention on a major issue since The government had been suppressing this information to project an image of security.
This video pierced that veil- until it was seen by (I believe) British citizens who woke up in the morning.
They called their friends at Facebook who realized it broke their rules and removed it.
Case 2:
Contrast this with how Facebook handled the boston Bombings.
Facebook mods removed gore images because that broke their rules.
And then a message came on high telling people “no, This is newsworthy and it goes through. The rules are in abeyance.”
If country like Mexico Can’t have that benefit, then Facebook is effectively using power in one place to decide what goes through and in other places is choosing not to exercise it.
Facebook is then trapped by its choice.
What should FB do in a country like Brazil? Hungary? Russia? India?
Heck, could any theoretically company find the right policy people and be able to pay them to tell their teams what the right call is?
Facebook's solution currently is this "we are not the arbiter of truth" comment, and working with governments to create govt agencies to set up rules which FB can then follow.
So What’s the right call in this situation?
There is no such thing as absolute freedom. This includes speech, which is already regulated in our society.
And as a society, we have spent ample effort to distinguish harmful speech - promotions of hate, abuse of minors etc...
This framework is clearly outlined in our laws and everything fb has done so far has been lawful.
One of the major proponents of this “let’s allow as much free speech as possible” framework is to establish an competitive marketplace of ideas, so that instead of legislating away bad ideas, as a society, we choose not to adopt them through reason.
This is why I think FB should be allowed to do what it’s doing.
As to if the recommendation and ranking algos are doing their job to help ideas be battled out in an transparent and efficient way, or simply creating an ideological echo chamber, that is another issue altogether.
We, as consumers, need to be vigilant, and choose a platform that we think is good for each one of us and our society.
In this case, have a discussion as a nation and choose between the Twitter and Facebook model.
I truly believe this is the American way.
If it is to reduce distribution because it could incite violence, it seems to me that 1) the vast majority of distribution/awareness is happening via traditional news outlets and 2) distribution and awareness is actually what you want to happen, since it is important that people be aware of the President's extreme rhetoric. If the reason is that the statement is immoral and platforms have a duty to take a stand / pick a side, then I would say that sounds reasonable to me but leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable. It feels like we are applying a Total War mentality to our political discourse, and that doesn't seem like something that could possibly end well.
Disclaimer: Former FB employee.
That's a pretty good way of describing it save that I would add that one side is failing to realize that they might lose and get hoist by their own petard of suppressing speech someday.